1 2026:CGHC:26513-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 526 of 2026 Smt. Ganeshi Thakur (Aalam) W/o Dinesh Aalam Aged About 45 Years Caste - Gond, R/o R.I.C. Mill Parisar, Mahendra Krama Ward - 42, Jagdalpur, Tahsil And District Baster, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aranya Bhawan Sector 19, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh. 5 - Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests Jagdalpur Circle Jagdalpur, Bastar Chhattisgarh. 6 - High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee Secretary, Scheduled Tribe And Scheduled Caste Development, Block - 4 D, Ground Floor, Indrawati Bhavan, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 7 - The Collector District Baster Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents Cause-title taken from Case Information System ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 For Appellant : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 30.06.2026 1 Heard Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondents. 2 The present intra-Court appeal has been against the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in the WPS No. 2092 of 2022 (Smt. Ganeshi Thakur (Aalam) Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3 Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that writ petitioner / appellant is currently working on the post of Forester in O/o Divisional Forest Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar. On the basis of complaint made by one V.P. Shori with regard to social status certificate of the writ petitioner, the matter was referred by Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission to the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee vide letter dated 3 31.07.2018 and the said Committee invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner vide order dated 24.9.2021 on the ground that petitioner failed to produce any document relating to her descendants to prove her caste. Subsequently, Chief Conservator of Forests, Jagdalpur Circle issued a letter on 10.3.2022 to the petitioner and provided her the last opportunity to defend herself. Being aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition i.e. WPS No. 2090 of 2022 before this Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 07.05.2026. Hence, this appeal. 4 Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and the settled principles governing caste verification proceedings. It is submitted that the proceedings against the appellant were initiated on the basis of a complaint made by a private person before the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission, which thereafter referred the matter to the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee. The appellant submits that the Commission, while dealing with such complaint, could at best conduct an inquiry and make appropriate recommendations to the Government, but the initiation of proceedings leading to invalidation of the appellant's caste certificate was without proper jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the High Level Certification Scrutiny 4 Committee has invalidated the appellant's caste certificate solely on the ground that she failed to produce documents relating to her ancestors, without properly appreciating the other documents and material available on record. The appellant has been serving as a Forester under the Forest Department for a considerable period on the basis of the caste certificate issued by the competent authority, and such certificate could not have been cancelled merely on the basis of suspicion or non-availability of ancestral documents. It is submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the authorities suffers from non-consideration of relevant material and violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate these aspects while dismissing the writ petition; therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and appropriate relief be granted to the appellant. 5 Mr. Prasun Kumar Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents does not dispute the legal position that the powers and jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission are circumscribed by the constitutional and statutory scheme governing its functioning. It is submitted that upon receipt of a complaint regarding the social status certificate of the appellant, the Commission could have conducted an inquiry into the complaint and submitted its report/recommendations to the State Government for appropriate 5 action, but it could not itself assume the role of an adjudicating authority for determination of the caste status of an individual. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Bilaspur v. Ajit P.K. Jogi and Others, (2011) 10 SCC 357, particularly in paragraphs 17 and 22, has clarified that the Commission constituted for the welfare and protection of Scheduled Tribes has the power to inquire into complaints relating to deprivation of safeguards available to such communities and make recommendations to the Government, but it does not have the power to adjudicate upon the validity of an individual's caste certificate or determine the caste status of a person. He, therefore, fairly submits that the matter requires reconsideration by the competent authority in accordance with law after examining whether the proceedings initiated against the appellant were within the scope of jurisdiction and whether the caste certificate could have been invalidated on the basis of the material relied upon. Accordingly, the appeal may be considered and appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law. 6 Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present appeal primarily relates to the legality of the proceedings initiated against the appellant pursuant to the complaint made before the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission and the consequential action taken by the 6 High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee resulting in invalidation of the appellant's caste certificate. 7 It is not in dispute that the appellant is working on the post of Forester under the Forest Department and that the caste certificate issued in her favour was subjected to scrutiny on the basis of a complaint made by a private person. The record indicates that the Chhattisgarh State Scheduled Tribes Commission, after receiving the complaint, referred the matter to the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee, which proceeded to invalidate the caste certificate of the appellant mainly on the ground that she failed to produce documents relating to her ancestors to establish her caste status. 8 The appellant has specifically contended that the jurisdiction exercised by the Commission and the consequential proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee require consideration in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit P.K. Jogi (supra). In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope and ambit of the powers of the Scheduled Tribes Commission, has observed in paragraph 17 that the Commission is empowered to investigate and monitor matters relating to safeguards provided for Scheduled Tribes and to inquire into specific complaints regarding deprivation of such safeguards, but it does not have the power to adjudicate upon the caste status of an individual. Further, in paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme 7 Court has clarified that on receipt of a complaint, the Commission may conduct an inquiry and submit its report to the Central Government or the State Government requiring appropriate measures for protection and welfare of Scheduled Tribes, but it cannot itself undertake the determination of the validity of a caste certificate. 9 In the present case, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, has not examined the aforesaid jurisdictional aspect as well as the effect of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The question as to whether the proceedings initiated against the appellant and the consequential order passed by the High Level Certification Scrutiny Committee suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity requires fresh consideration. Further, the issue as to whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in invalidating the caste certificate solely on the ground of non-production of documents relating to ancestors also requires examination in accordance with law. 10 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the learned Single Judge. 11 Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2090 of 2022 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the writ 8 petition on merits, after taking into consideration the submissions of the parties and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit P.K. Jogi (supra), as well as other applicable legal provisions governing caste certificate verification proceedings. 12 It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties, and all questions of fact and law are left open for consideration by the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra